yeah I just posted this in Microphones.
Also went to see the stuff on GS about
this.
Seems we are collectively suspicious.

£17k+ a pair???

maybe he is aiming for the Guinness record on high dollar hifi gear.

P.S.
Since the photo you posted is an artist`s representation, it makes you wonder if he
actully has more than 2 already made.
High cost of materials like the wooden blocks
must make stockholding tough.

Taking a wild guess, I would imagine the theory is that the funneling of the sound waves
down the horn would boost the SPL somewhat and that this increased pressure of the
wavefront would go someway to the claimed impedance matching, a diaphram obviously having
a different impedance to any air at or near sea level PSI. Remember also, impedance
matching is one of the terms that has managed to move across to the audiophile area from
electronics and audio engineering so might be seen as a good thing in and of itself.I would also think that unless the insides of the funnels are damped (which doesn't seem
to be the case) then there would be all sorts of reflections with differing phase issues.
As stated previously, have a listen to a sound through a tube (or funnel). The tube or
funnel effectively become the business end of a trombone or tuba, with the air column
excited in the way physical modelling simulates the effect of a column/cone of air (only
in reverse, more like an ear trumpet). If Mr Simpson has managed to get any sort of flat
response from those mics, I would be impressed. But then, my theory could possibly be way
off about the reflections and phase issues.The wood also concerns me. Although it
may be made of wood for the ease of working etc there are some pretty out there claims
made in the hi-fi world for the qualities of wood, as opposed to MDF or any other,
potentially LESS resonant material that I understand actually make for a better, if
cheaper, solution to monitor cabinets etc. Again, I am no expert but I read that plywood
is better for guitar and bass cabinets exactly because the crossed plys reduce
resonances.

The web site does not answer any of my questions but I am intrigued
- hence my request for any clarification from some of the expert acousticians, speaker
designers or microphone buffs that may see this.

Quote JohnnyT: The web site does
not answer any of my questions but I am intrigued - hence my request for any clarification
from some of the expert acousticians, speaker designers or microphone buffs that may see
this.

We (SOS) were
approached to review this mic, and I was involved in some discussions with the
designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly expensive mic warranted
the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing, but something as off-the
wall as this requires further investigation!

Sadly, none of the technical
claims made could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have
credibility -- and that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and
knowledgable independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

So we declined... and I'm yet to come across anyone who has used these things and
whose experience and ears I trust to provide an unbiased opion either.

As far
as I'm concerned, these things remains an amusing novelty until proven otherwise, and
there are far more relevant things to be filling the pages of SOS.

Hugh, a small bit of devil's advocacy if I might - not that it's my role to determine
editorial policy.

Suppose you had reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say,
the learned conclusion was that it was no better or worse than say a chinese LDC for
£150? Would that not be useful information to get into the market - and maybe mark the
cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's junk, somebody is going to publish that
fact?

If on the other hand it's a major breakthrough, that would be news too.
Possibly there might then be a discussion as to why it's worth £10,000 - if it is - and
how seriously high-end rivals at a "mere" £5,000-odd compare.

Quote Steve Hill:Suppose you had
reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say, the learned conclusion was that it was no
better or worse than say a chinese LDC for £150? Would that not be useful information to
get into the market - and maybe mark the cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's
junk, somebody is going to publish that fact?

I see where you're going, and to a degree I share the sentiment.
But personally I'd rather say positive things about a cheap mic that SOS readers might
buy, than negative things about a ludicrously expensive mic that no one will.

Had I been convinced that there was serious science behind it that would have made it
more worthy of SOS attention, too, but sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case. The
information provided to me was confused, contradictory, inaccurate and had no supportive
evidence.

Obviously, I (and those I consulted) may be wrong about the science,
and if that can be demonstrated then we'll take another look sometime, but it seems that
no one else is yet convinced either.

My personal take on snake oil products, by
the way, is to not honour them with the slightest attention. Any publicity feeds the
machine, and I want no part of that.

They're alright I
s'ppose but seem terribly unbalanced, especially in the orchestral ones ... well, in most
of them. In the orchestral ones, the brass is very prominent as are the woodwinds - sounds
like these expensive mics (£17k????! - he does another bundle for £42k!!!) were placed
BEHIND the orchestra rather than in front as the strings seem very subdued. For the jazz
recordings, the piano is muffled and poorly balanced.

If I didn't know any
better, I'd say these things don't really sound subjectively THAT much better than any of
the hand-held recorders such as the Zoom H-Series or Olympus gadgets that are doing the
rounds - they certainly don't sound £16,750-worth of an improvement.

Mind you,
the orchestra he has recorded doesn't help. Competent but not excellent.

I am
kinda with Steve, Hugh....

If not a review of these particular mics in question
but an article on snake-oil products like this (and the £1,500 mains lead from that
company whose name I forget ... or the £2,800 power
conditioner ... or the £80 'interconnects' Comet foist upon people to hook their £20
DVD up to their TV, etc.). Someone needs to blow the whistle on these charlatans that prey
on the gullible and uninformed.

That said, I understand that this is maybe
beyond the remit of your esteemed organ (ooo-er no missus!)

This thing seems to be made of beechwood or something. I'm strongly tempted to put some
$20 Chinese capsules in say a Brazilian rosewood horn and claim superior sound quality
owing to denser wood. And sell them for a trifling £3,000 each, say.

I know
a decent wood turner who knocks out hardwood fruitbowls and things for a living...

Quote Steve Hill:Hugh, a small bit of devil's advocacy if I might - not that it's my role to determine
editorial policy.

Suppose you had reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say,
the learned conclusion was that it was no better or worse than say a chinese LDC for
£150? Would that not be useful information to get into the market - and maybe mark the
cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's junk, somebody is going to publish that
fact?

If on the other hand it's a major breakthrough, that would be news too.
Possibly there might then be a discussion as to why it's worth £10,000 - if it is - and
how seriously high-end rivals at a "mere" £5,000-odd compare.

Quote Steve Hill:This thing
seems to be made of beechwood or something. I'm strongly tempted to put some $20 Chinese
capsules in say a Brazilian rosewood horn and claim superior sound quality owing to denser
wood. And sell them for a trifling £3,000 each, say.

I know a decent wood
turner who knocks out hardwood fruitbowls and things for a living...

Sounds like a plan Steve. You do realise though,
that you will need a course on bullsh!t in order to effectively promote, market and
monetize your invention...

But I am sure you have contacts in the city looking
for a job right now that could help you out on that one

There are plenty of examples to hear
recorded by the microphone's maker, and there are plenty of comments to read (all saying
the same thing) along with the maker's responses, which, curiously enough, all say the
same thing.

Really, this has all been done to death.

Briefly-very
briefly:

1. Microphone maker states mic's are not only the best in the world,
but, in fact are perfect and that listening to recordings made with them are
indistinguishable from being at the event. And, everyone should come to this conclusion.
If they don't something is wrong with them. Really, I am not exaggerating.

The
maker clearly states in his writings that people's varied responses (read: non positive)
are due to subjective factors. BUT, he then goes on to explain subjectivity, then
quantifying it (see 2A and B below) and removing subjectivity from the listening
experience. And once that is done, of course, everyone will reach the same conclusion,
because when subjectivity is removed, and it is very possible to do so, everyone will have
the same judgement.

Again, I am not joking. Just read the guy's writing.

2. Listeners who do not reach the same qualitative conclusion as the maker are
told (always!)) it is a result of one or both of the following (and only the
following-there are no other factors involved in the "diverse patterns of responses"):

A. Inferrior monitoring chain (In fact, he wants to know at the outset what you
will be using to listen to his clips. He then tells you there's a problem with your
gear.)

B. Your (the listener's) conditioning. The conditioning consists of (1)
having spent time with inferior microphones (!), and (2) listening to inferior monitoring
equipment (!!!).

Again, I am not joking.

3. This is followed by an
invitation to come to Poland for a "blind listening test"-and you are assured that you
will not be able to distinguish the recording from the source. The recording is to be
played back in the same room as the source. The proposed methodology of the test is
absurd.

4. The inventor likes to use both psycho-babble and audio-babble, and
unfortunately he invents all the terms.

Done to death, really, really, really
done to death.

Despite the absurd nature of the ideology, the microphones, and
the methodology; I believe the maker is absolutely sincere, and IMO, there is no attempt
whatsoever of taking advantage of people. He is someone who passionately committed to his
invention and his thought process. And despite thinking this is all crazy for so many
reasons, I do wish him success.

If he was just
a crackpot inventor peddling his theories sure, let him do it - he will cause no harm.
But there again I suppose there would be some who would invoke caveat emptor.

Unfortunately in my admittedly limited exposure to the worst aspects of Hi FI snake oil,
there will be plenty of people out there who will take his word as law without ever
thinking to question his statements and conclusions elsewhere.

I am beginning
to think the uneducated hi fi extremists are not ulike members of some strange religious
cult.

Please let me differentiate here between the guys who DO know their
onions and are merely obsessive in their search for the ultimate in audio perfection, or
as close as they can get, and the sheep who lap up the latest new (and usually
outlandishly expensive) hi fi toy.
Mind you by reading the various threads I have
found so far it does seem like he has taken it a bridge too far, especially the price.
Love to see how many he has sold so far.

We (SOS) were approached to review this mic, and I was involved in
some discussions with the designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly
expensive mic warranted the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing,
but something as off-the wall as this requires further investigation!

Perhaps I am reading this wrong but wouldn't
a review allow you to investigate further?

Quote:

Sadly, none of the technical claims made
could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have credibility -- and
that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and knowledgable
independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

Quote Ken Long:Perhaps I am
reading this wrong but wouldn't a review allow you to investigate further?

Of course it would... but it would also have
prevented me from doing something more constructive and productive with my time.

Quote:Were you sent a sample
or look did you look over the maths?

Neither. We were offered a sample but with unacceptable conditions. There was no
maths proffered, and the technical explantions to my questions given didn't stand up to
even basic scrutiny.

The bottom line is that although we do cover some
'aspirational' products in SOS from time to time, this mic is so stratopherically
expensive as to be utterly irrelevant to the core readership, and the claimed
technological advances didn't appear to hold water.

I think SOS readers buy the
mag to find out what might be good to spend their money on, not what not to spend their
money on -- especially when they wouldn't have bought it anway.

I guess if
Sennheiser and Rode start producing wooden horn microphones I'll have to kick myself for
being an idiot! But I'm not anticipating getting bruised in the near future...

I am
beginning to think the uneducated hi fi extremists are not ulike members of some strange
religious cult.

How
did this vaguely defined and unfairly and consistently maligned group enter the picture?
And who are they? Oh yeah, the guys who sold tangential turntables and B&W and Rogers
speakers in their "hi fi extremists" shop and were always mumbling about the British
sound, whatever that is. And, um, the guys who pay for lots of recordings so they can take
your nicely done recording home and enjoy it on their primo system.

I don't
think Mr. Andy would self identify as a "hi fi extremist," and he is certainly not
marketing to the "hi fi community."

Remember, he's selling to people who
produce recordings.

What Mr. Simpson might demonstrate, is that there is a
growing group of "pro audio extremists," and sitting on the highest priced mountain, he's
just gotten the attention of the SOS readership-at least the forum readership. Ah, those
pro audio extremists. You know, those guys with the Sennheiser, Schoeps, and Sanken40 and
50 kHz and 100 kHz a/symmetrical capsule microphones. (Despite what you think, those
manufacturers have assured us that we can at least "feel" something up there-the range of
your converter be damned.) Now, I thought wooden horns belonged on hi fi extremists
turntables. You know, no power ripple or anything like that, no tubes to age, no
transistors in the path.

BTW, don't any of those things come with headphones jacks? Passive, of course.
Any decent monitor controller is passive......I think is what we're supposed to
think.....and tone controls....they're supposed to be passive now, also, right, I think
that's the current pro audio extremists think.......I think we're supposed to be buying
the boxes with the fewest and lowest cost components for the highest price. Help me here,
I can't keep up with these extremists! You know, just like those new fangled Simpson
microphones-simple, cheap, and very expensive.

I do think there's a hi fi
extremists market right now for the old mechanical gramaphone-it could be made for a
little and sold for a lot.

Just like those wood microphones and 50 and 100
kHz microphones, the ones that promise to retrieve the nutty harmonics.

We
(SOS) were approached to review this mic, and I was involved in some discussions with the
designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly expensive mic warranted
the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing, but something as off-the
wall as this requires further investigation!

Sadly, none of the technical
claims made could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have
credibility -- and that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and
knowledgable independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

Hi Hugh,

I just
came across this thread by chance and thought I might clarify a few things.

Firstly, I did not approach SOS for a review.

I was contacted by Matt
Houghton, who asked if SOS could review a Model A microphone - to which I agreed.

That the claims could not be verified by the chosen consultants hardly makes them
fraudulent, but I do understand your position.

In any case, I finally had the
time to put together some technical writing & repeatable measurements, which might put
the design in perspective (papers available on my site) and clarify the concept.

For a perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design,
nonlinear distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule.

I think you would agree that this is a huge reduction in
nonlinear distortion, distortion which Sennheiser has correctly stated (for many years) is
responsible for muddy & unmusical sound quality in microphones (as justification of
their symmetrical capsule design).

Actually, in the case of the Model A, the
significance of the reduction of nonlinear distortion achieved makes most microphones
sound like compressors by comparison.

Also, you might be interested in the
spectral masking concepts, which are also unique to the Model A.

In any case,
whether such a specialist microphone belongs on the pages of SOS I have no idea. Perhaps
not.

I find PDFs a rather odd way to display information on a web page. Also when you are using
supposedly tens of thousands of pounds worth of mics on a recording, surely you don't want
to show it off in mp3?

Quote Andy Simpson:Firstly, I
did not approach SOS for a review. I was contacted by Matt Houghton, who asked if SOS
could review a Model A microphone - to which I agreed.

Apologies -- my mistake.

Quote:In any case, I finally had the time to put
together some technical writing & repeatable measurements, which might put the design in
perspective (papers available on my site) and clarify the concept.

As a happy owner os some Sennheiser MKH mics, amongst many others, I'm intrigued by the
claim "For a perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design,
nonlinear distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule."

If the MKH's distortion, used as part of a well set-up
recording path, is below negligible on any reasonable blind listening test, which it is,
why should I or anyone else want to spend £10,000 getting something even less negligible?

The difference must be inaudible, even if it is measurable with instruments.

Quote Steve Hill:As a happy
owner os some Sennheiser MKH mics, amongst many others, I'm intrigued by the claim "For a
perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design, nonlinear
distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule."

If the MKH's distortion, used as part of a well set-up
recording path, is below negligible on any reasonable blind listening test, which it is,
why should I or anyone else want to spend £10,000 getting something even less negligible?

The difference must be inaudible, even if it is measurable with instruments.

Hi Steve,

The
question of audibility is a very interesting one certainly.

I'm not sure where
you get the idea that the nonlinear distortion of this level is inaudible.

Do
you have any references with regards to audibility in mind? That would be very
interesting.

In my view, the issue of nonlinear distortion is often dubiously
presented as 'isolated intermodulation distortion which appears very low below the main
signal'.

If we looked at the nonlinear distortion products of a compressor this
way it would not tell us much about how we perceive compression.

Regarding
audibility, in the case of Sennheiser, there are numerous claims as to the audibility of
the reduction achieved in the symmetrical capsule, which we can get into if you would be
interested.

I would agree that these claims are valid but if we do accept this,
the implications are very interesting.

Andy, I spent 22 years as a partner in the world's largest accounting firm so I understand
numbers.

Why is your mic £10,000? Rather than, say, £500?

If,
improbably, it's the result of half a million in R&D investment, and you rightly recognise
that you can't sell all that many in a global market to recoup, then I can understand.
Even if I doubt your business strategy.

Why stick it in a funnel - even a
handsomely turned wooden funnel? I can stick a decent measurement mic like a B&K in a
megaphone but it ain't pretty.

Where, if anywhere, are dispassionate reviews by
third parties with a respectable name in the industry, saying this is a useful
development?

Why should I assume for even a nano-second you are not just hoping
there's a handful of idiots out there - the sorts of people who are impressed by £7,250 cables who might help you make a quick (quack?) buck?

There's a million decent, and many classic, records that have been made without
this stuff. Many without any individual mic costing over £500. So tell me why we need
it.

I believe the problem is that no person has done any really, really good recordings with
the mic. The examples on the web page included which, speaking frankly, are quite bad. It
might be that it is not possible to do good recordings?

Now, the simple
solution is to make some stunningly good recordings and let us listen to them. Selling by
showing the quality.

So far, despite the very extravagant claims being made for these
mics, I've yet neither seen nor heard anything to convince me that there isn't far less to
them than meets the eye.

On the 'evidence' so far, I wouldn't be prepared to
part with any money for them, let alone thousands of pounds. That's not to say I
wouldn't like to spend some time trying them, or that I wouldn't be happy to buy them if I
could convince myself that they were worth the price, or at least delivered something that
none of my other mics can but £17,995/pr is a lot of convincing!

These measurements are entirely repeatable
and so cannot contravene the laws of physics.

Quote:

the effects of horn resonance , and the
funnel's internal reflectivity...

You are thinking of the acoustic horn in a very limited context -
that of the loudspeaker.

In the case of the Model A, there can be no 'internal
reflectivity' - there are no surfaces which would allow it nor wavefronts which would
allow it.

What you refer to as 'horn resonance' often exists in the case of a
loudspeaker - which generates sound pressure at the throat (spherical wavefront)
and it travels outwards.

What this means is that a proportion of the
outwards propagating spherical wavefront travels outwards freely (minimum pathlength) and
the rest must reflect any number of times before it reaches free space (increasing
pathlengths).

In the case of the microphone, there is no 'throat' and the
incoming wavefront is essentially planar - there is no effective difference in
propagating angle.

In other words, in this case it is not possible for there to
be 'horn resonance'.

I have a question. I have taken the below from the User Guide - Model A
Microphone.

"The polar pattern of the Model A is generally fairly intuitive and
can be easily understood by looking at the microphone."

Is that because it has
a big hole in one end?

Hi,

What I meant by that phrase is that because the polar response of the
Model A is achieved by physical acoustic geometry, rather than 'acoustic delay circuits',
simply looking at the shape of the mic gives you a very good idea of polar response.

Looking at any normal mic will not tell you as much about polar response (if
anything!).

How many have you sold to date and have
the purchasers let you have any wav files of the mics in use?

I think it is
safe to assume that you are really going to have to wow the troops here or anywhere else
to convince any of us that the mics are genuinely worth £10k a piece.

You have
set your price so far above the price of any other mic generally available on the open
market that you really, really need to be doing a proper job of convincing your most
likely customers (audio pros who can justify the expense if the mics earn their keep) that
the benefits outweigh the cost.

And frankly just waving a load of scholarly
papers at us isn`t going to cut it.Help us believe in your product by showing us
real(preferably audio in non-mp3 format) results that are significantly better than we can
achieve already with our lowly £2-4K conventional mics.

In my experience, the hi-fi extremists who buy expensive wooden
phono cartridges (real) and directional superconducting cables (me being silly - now,
anyway) tend to be lawyers, doctors and city blokes (i.e they have cash to burn and are
always men), whereas musicians, basically, are skint and usually want something for
nothing.

I just don't get how one *wouldn't* have reflections and comb-filtering of some kind from
what is basically a funnel!?Though, the Darwinian-Productions Mark 1 Ear does come
with a waveguide itself... It makes use of reflections to help with spacial perception,
does it not?

Quote Andy Simpson:That is the
purpose of the papers which explain the concepts & measurements.

That these
concepts are hard to grasp is not my fault.

That the proposition of progress
seems unpalatable to the majority of writers here is also not my fault.

If you
do not understand from what I've written you may need to read it (all) again with
consultation of the references & other publications around the subject.

Andy, this kind of condescending claptrap
that, to a bunch of people who use mics for a living in often very demanding
circumstances, is yet another reason why I would not touch your product with a ten foot
pole.

I don't care about the maths. I care about how a mic sounds. And then
about how easy it is to position, and get good results out of, in real world conditions,
where clients are rightly concerned about the cost per minute of studio time.

The fact is there is no extant recording made with your mic which persuades me, either
as a listener or as an engineer, that there is the slightest reason to pay what you're
asking or anything like it. On basic listening tests of your own examples (on a £25k
monitoring system in a treated control room), nothing sells this thing to me.

You said 18 months ago in
this forum that "Regarding my samples, these are very basic 'worst case' recordings,
made with entry level gear." Now why would you want to market your product like that?

You also said: "The microphone is designed to be post-equalised. This means that
using a simple equalisation 'curve' the mic is brought to 'flat'."

You can
dress that up however you like, but I just read as meaning the mic is not accurate. Any
EQ can add phase problems. I've never before seen a mic sold as requiring me to
factor in that consideration.

Then you said, regarding the curious
disappearance of some samples of pop music from your site "I had the pop samples taken
down because there is almost no interest in progress in this market which seems obsessed
with a self-destructive love of compression & poor monitoring." OK, just feel free to
patronise most of your target market. See if we care.

Andy, this stuff is
pathetic! With respect, if you want ten grand of my money for a mic, you're going to have
to try a lot harder than that. Maybe you're just in denial about the fact that you don't
have a marketable product?

And the further fact is that I'm not aware
that any reputable studio, producer or engineer is using your product or singing its
praises.

Microphony is basically a mature technology, done and dusted half a
century or more ago, with some caveats (irrelevant for present purposes) about surround
sound and binaural etc. Where advances are happening at all, it's in people like Neumann
giving us say the TLM49 for less than £1,000 because they (a) know very clearly what they
are doing, and (b) understand that the market has moved away from even their own more
exotic products.

I like the sound of say a Neumann U47 and it's oh-so-pathetic
maths, or a hissy noisy KM84, and so do my clients.

A general +1 on everything that has been added to this thread recently.
We still
have no numbers from you as to how many sold or for that matter any real world
results.

I too have spent an inordinately large amount of time wading through
your supporting paperwork and also remain unconvinced.
Your comments as to the
difference between loudspeaker and microphone behaviour just do not hold water at
all.
Your comments about the behaviour of air going INto your mic being irrelevant
compared to air coming OUT of a speaker are, shall we say, wishful thinking IMO.
The
idea that a horn can be designed to avoid ALL internal reflections and yet a loudspeaker
cannot is also a fascinating one.
I do not express myself well when discussing
technical concepts but I still find myself at a loss to follow your explanation of the
difference here.
From my standpoint, there is none.

And once again we
come down to the question I first asked in the very early stages of this thread &
which remains unanswered.

HOW MANY have you sold?
Are any of the
purchasers prepared to demonstrate an example of fine recordings made with you rmics?

Hell, I`ll even offer to BUY a recording from one of your customers, so long as
the price falls within the normal price range for a CD.
(£10-15)

Quote Steve Hill:Microphony is
basically a mature technology, done and dusted half a century or more ago

We've had this discussion before and it
sstill peeves me.... With the utmost respect as always, your statement is inaccurate, the
microphone is not a mature technology any more than the motor car is a 'mature
technology.'

Microphones may look similar to those of the 1930s and 40s, and
much of the technology might share similar names, but there have been and continue to be
significant advances. Senheiser's symmetrical capsules have already been mentioned and are
just one. Crowley and Trip's nano-carbon ribbon technology is another. AKG's development
of large diaphragm electrets is another. DPA's development of the intereference tubes with
omni capsules is another. Audiotechnica's multi-cpasule DSP-based directional mics are
another. And there are plenty more advances in development.

There is still
plenty of scope to improve the microphone. It's not just about cheap chinese clones
allowing people to buy fifty year old technology for knock down prices.

However, whether or not this particular mic counts as a useful technology development
remains to be seen. That those with the appropriate academic credentials and relevant
experience struggle to understand and verify the claims and explanations made of this
innovative approach still concerns me. And at that price, there will be few independent
empirical opinions either.

Sorry, but how many he's sold is something of an irrelevance .... it makes no odds at
all with relation to the technical question of whether this mic is actually any good....

it's not like Brauner VMA's or VM1S's are selling in the thousands
either..... I defy any of you to tell me they're not a good mic..... and at RRP , in
terms of magnitude, they're not all that much cheaper either.... (VM1S = about £7K +
VAT) (okay, so it's stereo... but still... ) .... and Dirk has some "odd" ideas about
physics sometimes..... (not necessarily wrong, but perhaps "uniquely expressed" ....
quantum mechanics for Mics gets him very "excited" . ) which make equally hard
reading....

Hugh's point about technology movement is also very valid..
a mature technology is one where we have made all the major advances we're ever going to
be able to make..... this is almost certainly not the case with Microphones....

I'm No Microphone designer.....

but i've a reasonable grounding
in Physics and engineering.

my concerns involve a number of the technical
claims... about acoustic impedance matching for starters.... I don't believe the
loading works quite the way it appears to be claimed. which is why showing your working,
the maths.... is important....

then in the micro-acoustic environment of the
horn, the path length differentials for any incident sound not directly perpendicular to
the horn position and alignment.... and it's effect on the polar pattern across the
spectrum, and obviously the off axis response.

the question of body resonance
, the wooden horn 's behaviour in that respect and possible transmission through to the
capsule itself...

BUT What's really bothering me I suppose, is that none of
the recordings I've so far heard match up to what's possible with even moderate level
recording and monitoring equipment and an averagely good set of mics.... never mind
really good high end ones....

making me rather un-inclined to investigate a
great deal further. (eg, I'm unlikely to sell the kids to fund a pair)

and I
ask, even assuming the intermodulation distortion claims to be completely valid, given the
utterly skewed response graph , and requirement to add EQ afterwards (with it's own
distortions of phase and so on) what's the point???

Don`t know about everyone else but I asked how many he had sold and whether or not there
was a possibility of getting some non-Andy recordings to audition so I could gauge the end
result more effectively.

The science is one thing, but the net result in terms
of VFM is just as relevant, surely?To be honest, if someone told me they had a
microphone that relied on being filled with phlogiston to achieve it`s effects, I`d be
quite happy to plnk down my dosh IF it came up with the goods.

At present we
have a lot of paperwork and promises, allied with some average recordings. And a
massive retail price.

I am quite happy to leave debating the technicalities to
you idris - I respect the opinions and experience of both you and Hugh & freely
acknowledge your techie credentials are vastly better than mine.

So by all
means debate the science but let us not forget what the majority of us are really here
for.Results in the real world.

And I have to agree with idris - what`s
the point, if you have to hack around the recorded signal to get it sounding right?

Quote idris y draig:BUT What's
really bothering me I suppose, is that none of the recordings I've so far heard match up
to what's possible with even moderate level recording and monitoring equipment and an
averagely good set of mics.... never mind really good high end ones....

That's my point. I'm not saying the maths
is irrelevant in purist abstract terms. I'm saying it's irrelevant to me, as compared
with quality of product.

These things have been around 18 months or so now.
I've seen no reviews or endorsements from anybody with any industry credibility (and I've
looked). In that context asking about sales volumes is pertinent.

I'd also add
that in a global depression I'd want to be very confident about the long term survival of
a company before I blew $30,000 on a pair, lest they ever need servicing. I know
I can get Neumann to fix a 50 year old mic.

I mentioned this product to my wife, who
as some of you will know is heavily involved in sorting out & launching new products
(usually in the software arena) and she was totally disbelieving of the whole thing.

Said something like `He is joking - does he even know if his target market has
£17k to spend, or for that matter does he HAVE a target market`

Think she
might have hit the nail on the head there.Particularly in the light of his
reticence to quote sales.

Isnt it amazing that a product weve not seen, that has not been reviewed,that noone has
bought(methinks)...has caused so much conversation and consternation? I myself have
developed the .5 channel compressor...the theory is that you send the whole channel back
on itself, invert it if you will and remove the whole signal..by removing the whole signal
what you are left with is my new track called the emperors new clothes.You can download
this track from myspace for a nominal fee of £6500.

Some years ago I
worked for a startup company that had developed a product that was genuinely streets ahead
of the competition.

Except that it wasn't. Technically very impressive, it did
what the competition (in a mature market) did, but measurably 10 times better.

But the market didn't need anything that was 10 times better. Especially
since:

(a) the product was 5 time more expensive than the competition(b)
there were question marks over company longevity and ability to support the product(c) no-one could quantify the benefits of the product over the competition. So what if
it's faster/bigger/redder etc etc, why did anyone need it?

If you can't
establish the market need, then the technical specs are meaningless, and the product
becomes a laboratory curiosity.

Reading the thread is kind of deja vu (vu
.. vu.. vu..)

PS The company in question sold a few, consumed vast quantities
of venture capital in continued R&D, and was then bought out for pence when it ran out
of money.

Quote idris y draig:Hugh's point
about technology movement is also very valid.. a mature technology is one where we have
made all the major advances we're ever going to be able to make..... this is almost
certainly not the case with Microphones....

Hi,

Yes, Hugh is absolutely right about that
(though the industry may not be pleased to hear him say so).

Much of what we
currently hold as 'subjective' will eventually be reduced to objective, but the necessary
scrutiny is not yet there.

Quote:

my concerns involve a number of the technical claims...
about acoustic impedance matching for starters.... I don't believe the loading works
quite the way it appears to be claimed. which is why showing your working, the maths....
is important....

This is where the question I posed earlier comes in. Where or how else does a measured
reduction in nonlinear distortion occur in combination with an increase in SPL at
the capsule?

If we use a parabolic reflector (or increased proximity) to make
the same acoustic gain, we will see an equal rise in nonlinear distortion.

The fundamental difference here is key and it is the measurements that offer the
greatest clue.

Quote:

then in the micro-acoustic environment of the horn, the path length differentials
for any incident sound not directly perpendicular to the horn position and alignment....
and it's effect on the polar pattern across the spectrum, and obviously the off axis
response.

Good solid
questions. However, I was trying to address 'why do the internal reflection issues of the
horn speaker not apply here' questions.

Your questions actually touch on what
I would call proprietary design concepts. If we get into that I will be writing a step by
step guide to designing the microphone, which I would prefer to avoid, with respect.

Quote:

the
question of body resonance , the wooden horn 's behaviour in that respect and possible
transmission through to the capsule itself...

Perhaps the scale of the design is not clear from the
photos?

We can expect very little resonance issue from such thickness of
dense/dead wood, so the problem of mechanical transmission of resonance is more or less
zero.

In any case, we can ask the same question of any microphone - good
question though it is - so I don't think this is a fundamental issue.

It
would not be hard to further damp the structure & make comparative measurements in
order to prove the point, but this is not really necessary in my view.

Quote:

BUT What's
really bothering me I suppose, is that none of the recordings I've so far heard match up
to what's possible with even moderate level recording and monitoring equipment and an
averagely good set of mics.... never mind really good high end ones....

...and I ask, even assuming the intermodulation distortion claims to be completely
valid, given the utterly skewed response graph , and requirement to add EQ afterwards
(with it's own distortions of phase and so on) what's the point???

Don't forget that the popular MKH
microphones (to which I constantly refer) are designed with a similar (though less
significantly applied) concept.

The MKH mics are essentially undamped,
non-flat frequency response, and are EQ'd flat with internal circuitry - which is quite
widely known as far as I know.

You can check the Sennheiser papers with
regards to the actual significance of the subject of potential phase distortion and also
look at the phase graphs shown.

To the question of audibility-

If you do not hear anything unusual in my samples, you are not alone and I would
bet money that your ears have every bit the acuity of mine or better.

And once again all real world issues are neatly sidestepped.
PLus yet another lot of
mp3 files.
I haven`t even bothered D/Ling them this time.

I and I
suspect 99% of your projected market couldn`t give a rat`s about the underlying science,
Andy.

The discussion of distortion etc is all well and good, but
it
isn`t going to sell you any microphones.
What we are interested in is `does this do
the job of facilitating quality recordings significantly better than any other mics out
there`
And if the answer is `Yes`, we then have to examine the cost of acquisition
of this technology and decide if the entry price is worth it or not.
All else is
marginally interesting sideshow stuff..

My last contribution to this now, in
my opinion, totally worthless thread.

and indeed,
while some appear "on principle" to object to a Mic costing that much.... I have no
problem with the idea... IF the Mic performs accordingly....

I don;t think
it's a sustainable business plan mind you.... especially in the current situation vis a
vis the global economy... , and I sure as hell aint buying one, never mind a pair....
but I have no problem with the idea....

the numbers sold are irrelevant....

but the technical debate, is actually what defines the question of whether
this mic is capable of the performance to justify the price... (irrespective of the
business plan viability)

so no, this discussion of distortion, is not merely
"all well and good" , or indeed a sideshow....

the technical questions ARE the
"main event" Ivan....

In the same way as what gave serious Meat to the
"Arby" type threads of days gone by.... in addition to the business plan discussionm, at
the core of the pointed questions made to the Xytar CEO , were solid technical issues with
the claims being made.... (albiet about rebadged behringer , rather than a uniquely
manufactured "high end" product)

you can't have a really good argument about
the value of a thing, without a solid core of technical investigation of it's "merits" or
lack thereof...

and it's possible, that a small number of people might
actually buy these mics because of the distortion behaviour.. assuming all other
parameters to be up there with the best of them....

oh, and Mr Simpson... for gods sakes host some 24 bit uncompressed files will you....
the MP3 encoding process itself is probably adding more artefacts than the difference
between the mics... even at higher bit rates.

Is that why that lame no-brainer failure Bono always tracks with
a £70 SM57? Or maybe he (and 150 million album buyers) think the sound suits him?

How many end users are going to listen on Andy's ideal monitoring system which (he
claims) coincidentally does not reveal any flaws in his mic? What's wrong with mics that
sound "right" when the end result is played on somebody's iPod while they are out
jogging?

Why does he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ this
mic, or why his samples are in his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems? What
guarantees can he offer for long term customer support to justify the price of these
things (and in that context a proven sales record most certainly matters)? Why exactly
(as he now claims) do his own website's pictures apparently not do justice to these mics?
It's his website.

Why not lend a mic to a serious studio, to do some serious
projects, in the hope of a worthwhile independent endorsement? Or has he already done
this and found no endorsement forthcoming?

I don't think Ivan's engaged in a
witchhunt. He's asking fair questions, as am I , and the hard ones are being
sidestepped/ignored, while more and more BS spews forth.

FWIW I run one of the
few studios that could spend $30,000 on a pair if I felt like it. But since I'm met with
hostility, evasion or simply being ignored on the questions that matter, sod it. Andy's
had a chance to answer sensible concerns without spouting "just look at the maths", and
opts not to do so. I've recorded a 40 piece string section today. If this product could
help me do the same only better, I'm interested (regardless of price). I can spend money
elsewhere, however, and I will.

I think you slightly misconstrue my point with regards the main event, The argument being
that the technical "theoretical" arguments are relevant and valid whether the Mic costs
£100 , £1000, or £10000. is hand made in europe , or mass produced in China....
and are the heart of whether the mic is in fact capable of being "That good"

also, I think his comment about pictures was actually talking about scale.... it's
difficult to get a sense of the actual physical dimensions of the assembly from a
disembodied image.... with no obvious reference point from which to judge the size....

you'll also note I've actually queried the EQ situation as well.... although
he's right in his point about many other mics using EQ to compensate for physical design
requirements leaving a less than desirable spectral offset.

my
"concerns" are totally independent of cost....

Andrew... my point ,
about the EQ being an issue, is that my current understanding is that it is to be added
by the operator.... and as a result, could be almost anything.... whether or not
appropriate.... rather than being a very specifically , carefully designed and crafted,
high quality, part of the mic itself..

My question regarding the Horn's
own physical reaction to stimuli is not, as you state, also equally addressable to every
other mic.... the vast majority of other mics , don;t have the (relatively, to the
capsule) large structure stuck on the front of them... (ignoring certain specialist
applications, like shotgun Mics for example.... ) Mic's we'd generally use for
recording in a "high quality" chain, are generally surrounded either by a relatively
large, but permeable cage, to act as some protection from impact and plosives, and/or a
fairly small acoustic structure to determine pressure wave path behaviour... usually made
out of something less inherently capable of resonance , both structurally, and as a
general trend of the material.

a front mounted horn of wood on the other
hand... is basically a bell.

a structural form long chosen for specific
duties.... like resonating nicely for example....

and the timber is not
really a truly effective self damping material either. witness it's use in all sorts of
instruments..... (actually it's possible that high quality Ply would be a better
material to choose in this respect , the lamination of the material makes it inherently
less resonant than solid timber... )

any powerful transient
intersecting with that horn... is going to impart energy in to the horn... with
potentially "interesting" results.

with regards to the comment about not
wishing to get too much in to the mic design theory..... patent it, then publish....
unless people understand what it is you're doing to some extent, they simply won;t accept
your word for it as being the end of the matter..... or the ultimate arbiter of where
they spend their money...... as evidenced by Steve , Ivan, and co....

Why does
he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ this mic, or why his samples are
in his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems?

So the DAV BG1 preamplifier and the Mytek
converters are cheap systems? I recently bought similar preamplifiers (with onboard A/D
conversion) in order to improve my Fireface 400 setup and I guess I was completely wrong
then...

Quote Steve Hill:How many end
users are going to listen on Andy's ideal monitoring system which (he claims)
coincidentally does not reveal any flaws in his mic? What's wrong with mics that sound
"right" when the end result is played on somebody's iPod while they are out jogging?

Nothing... except that the
inevitable result is a downward spiral to utter mediocrity. The same logic would question
why you have invested in the quality monitoring and acoustics of your studio, when a back
bedroom and some cheap speakers would do just as well for most people.

The
reason, as always, is because professionals aspire to obtain the best possible quality at
source. That's why we invest in high quality mics, accurate monitoring and properly sorted
controol room acoustics.

And Andy is almost certainly correct in that only
the best high-end monitoring systems will be accurate enough in terms of non-linear
distortion to reveal the difference between a very low distortion mic (such as his claim)
and something with much higher inherent distortion. I have myself been involved in demos
years back when the MKH range was launched, where the differences were completely
inaudible on some (popular but relatively poor) monitors, yet chalk and cheese obvious on
other, significantly cleaner models.

Quote:Why does he not answer my questions about the "need" to always EQ
this mic

It is largely an
irrelevance. Although I share Idris' concerns about users applying any old EQ that takes
their fancy, they do this anyway. Plcae accurate flat mic in front of source, tweak EQ to
find a sound they 'like'.

The appropriate EQ could easily be built in to the
mic -- as it is in many other designs -- if that's what the market desired. I'm assuming
this hasn't been done becuase it is still early days for the production of this mic. Are
there any more in existence than a couple of prototypes?

Quote:why his samples are in
his own words sub-standard and done on cheap systems?

Good question. That does appear to leave a large hole in the
foot....

Quote:What guarantees can he offer for long term customer support to justify the price of
these things

None. Who
could offer any long term guarantees, especially in the current financial malaise? You of
all people should know that past history is no guarantee of future viability. But
presumably, third party mic specialists would be able to service the mics just as they can
for other brands.

Quote:Why not lend a mic to a serious studio, to do some serious projects, in the hope
of a worthwhile independent endorsement? Or has he already done this and found no
endorsement forthcoming?

No
one would rely on an unproven mic for a real fee-paying project, which means double the
work to rig known reliable mics in addition and mix both versions. What's in it for the
studio?

Quote:...the hard ones are being sidestepped/ignored,

Yes, I think I share that view.

Quote:We're in Russ Andrews
territory, and I think most of us know that.

No one
would rely on an unproven mic for a real fee-paying project, which means double the work
to rig known reliable mics in addition and mix both versions. What's in it for the studio?

Actually, I've got a
couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple two
or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia preamps
(or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six channels
of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about and whether
they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm
doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a
tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both
sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers
and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty
relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the
sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so
there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the
same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular
session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear
so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick
them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run
to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows,
if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

As regards the DAV/Mytek
etc "inadequacies", I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this stuff any more than
I'm saying there's anything wrong with a cheap old Neumann U87.

I have merely
linked to a post by Andy Simpson on another forum where he attributed the poor quality of
the examples on his website to using this cheap stuff (rather than, say, his mics).

Personally I swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for
something or other. I have recommended it to many people here over the years as being
comparable to pre-amps costing three or four times as much.

Quote Steve Hill:Personally I
swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for something or other.
I have recommended it to many people here over the years as being comparable to pre-amps
costing three or four times as much.

As
regards the DAV/Mytek etc "inadequacies", I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this
stuff any more than I'm saying there's anything wrong with a cheap old Neumann U87.

Steve, the quote regarding
'worst case gear' is taken out of context.

My early/first samples were made
with an m-audio delta1010 & tlaudio ivory 4001 mic-amps - as were the clips in the
4006 comparison thread mentioned above. This I would describe as 'worst case' consumer
level.

I have never described either Mytek or DAV as worst-case or low-end!

They are both very good pieces of professional gear and I use them both daily!

Quote:

Personally
I swear by the DAV BG1 and it's a rare session where I don't use it for something or
other.

If you look
hard enough at my posts on GS, you will find that I have given the exact same
recommendation of the BG1.

I sincerely hope that I have not been seen to in any
way put down these excellent pieces of gear.

I make no such 'worst-case' claims
of my current samples, which represent the event they recorded to my satisfaction, given
suitably low distortion monitoring.

Actually, I've
got a couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple
two or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia
preamps (or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six
channels of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about
and whether they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm
doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a
tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both
sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers
and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty
relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the
sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so
there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the
same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular
session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear
so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick
them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run
to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows,
if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

Hi 0VU, that is a very kind
offer and I will take you up on it directly, in person.

Glad to hear you intend to take 0VU up on his offer..... i look forward to hearing
the results...

I'd add that there are in fact WAV files available of
some material recorded with these mics.... (16 bit 44.1K) .. I found them while trawling
other forums this morning.... I'll not post the links in case there's a specific
reason Andy has not done so..... (bandwidth limits or something.... ) .

I
have NOT yet listened to them.... as I'm away from the studio and any decent monitoring
... and I intend to give them the best chance of being heard "properly" .

Actually, I've
got a couple of classical CD projects coming up over the next month or so which are simple
two or three mic rigs. I can field, say six channels of Crookwood, Grace, or Millennia
preamps (or others but one of those should satisfy the 'clean/transparent' camp), and six
channels of either Prism or dCS converters. At least then, I'll know what they're about
and whether they have a place outside the Russ Andrews catalogue (OK, I'm
doubtful but, in the absence of detailed explanations of the theories and engineering, a
tryout seems like an idea if it doesn't get in the way of the day job.)

On both
sessions, the halls are known quantities, with acoustics appropriate for the performers
and programme, the artistes of a reasonably high calibre and the sessions usually pretty
relaxed so I wouldn't mind giving the horn mics a whirl if they were available. One of the
sessions has the advantge of being part of a series done with a fairly constant balance so
there's a good selection of existing recordings if extra comparisons are desired on the
same people doing similar music, in the same venue, with similar micing. That particular
session is one where I often try out parallel rigs - especially mics - when testing gear
so it'd be easy enough to try some of Mr Simpson's creations. If he doesn't want to stick
them in the post and it'll encourage him to visit and explain them properly, I could run
to a lunch and all the tea/coffee he can drink. Who knows,
if the mics are as good as he claims I might even buy them - but then lunch is on him!

Hi 0VU, that is a very kind
offer and I will take you up on it directly, in person.

I'd love to hear what the session sounds like, this whole thread intrigues me, even
though, i'm a bedroom music making pleb that will never buy the mic, nor work with muso's
good enough to do justice if the claims are correct.

Never the less I'd still
read a car mag about a Bugatti Veyron, even though its unlilely I would ever own one...

Quote Steve Hill:This thing
seems to be made of beechwood or something. I'm strongly tempted to put some $20 Chinese
capsules in say a Brazilian rosewood horn and claim superior sound quality owing to denser
wood. And sell them for a trifling £3,000 each, say.

I know a decent wood
turner who knocks out hardwood fruitbowls and things for a living...

Man with Lathe and limited morals here...

--------------------No dog should ever be seen at the dining-room table.... unless absolutely certain that he can hold his own in the conversation.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:I'm sure
he'll report back as soon as he has. Be patient....
these things can take time to
arrange.

hugh

Would such an event not merit an article in the mag? Sure, these mics are out of most
people's price range, but SOS regularly features gear way out of my price range. I still
read those articles avidly for the sake of interest.

back further in this mega thread Hugh had indicared that they were indeed approached re a
review but declined due to doubts about the underlying science involved. I for one
am awaiting the results of Ow`s recording eagerly. A part of me would love for these
to turn out to be the super mics they are claimed to be. Even if I could never
justify buying a pair.

even if the sound of
these particular mic's don't end up being great, its interesting (for me at least) to
think that there might just be one small piece of technology in them that might improve
microphone technology in general, and for me it is thinking outside of the box like this
that pushes technology on, regardless of price.

I wouldn't usually weigh in on discussions like this, but came across the thread by
accident and feel that there are a few things I should say. There are quite a few valid
points made here, and some others which simply seem to reflect standard industry
prejudice. I made contact with Andy Simpson last autumn, because rather in the spirit of
the last poster I was intrigued by his idea, and although I wasn't overly impressed by the
audio clips on his site, I felt there was something distinctly different in the sound of
them which merited further investigation. Andy spent some days in November with me at the
NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) studio in Oslo while I was recording a concert production for
broadcast. This was extremely interesting for both of us, but not necessarily an ideal
demo situation for the mics. The clips that Andy posts on his site are his stereo downmix
from three Model A mics suspended coincident (or as coincident as is possible given their
size) with our own main pickup (in this case a wide RCA style tree of Neumann u89s). The
height and placing of the tree was determined largely by our needs for the broadcast mix
(ie. correct placement of the U89s) rather than to create an optimum position for the
Model As. The recordings as they stand are not therefore the best showcase for the
capabilities of the microphone, and I fully agree with an earlier poster who feels the
need for a "demonstration quality" recording to judge from. However the NRK Model A clips
are interesting if you compare them directly with our conventional main mics (maybe Andy
can post these too), because then you'd have a reference which would mean something to
most engineers. My personal opinion of the Model As... is complex. I think that the
lowering of IM distortion by 30-40dB is very audible - in fact it is probably the
characteristic that struck me as different when I first listened to Andy's clips. The ear
is very good at perceiving low level information in the presence of high level
information, thinking of how critical reverb quality is even at 40-50dB below program
level it makes complete sense to me that non-musical distortion at that level would also
be clearly audible. Comparing the U89s to the Model As you can clearly hear the IM
distortion as a sort of glassy veil. You also realise how much low level musical
information (upper harmonics) is being masked by the same distortion, having the effect of
flattening out the timbre differences between instrumental groups. However the flipside of
the huge gain in distortion performance is a very far from flat frequency response.
Because the mic contains no active electronics, it requires large amounts of external EQ
to iron out the horn characteristic. This makes it impossible to listen to the microphone
via any standard analogue console, and requires a digital console or DAW which can provide
a large amount of realtime phase-linear parametric EQ. The one reservation I have about
the post EQ'd sound of the Model A, and it is a fairly big reservation, is that there is a
feeling of a lack of freedom - that things are somehow closed in. This "closed in" quality
of sound may well be the result of the digital EQ. Andy is against analogue EQ because of
the inherent phase distortion and noise issues, but personally I'd love to hear the Model
A through a well designed analogue EQ stage so I can make up my own mind. Whatever my
reservations, I'm convinced that Andy is onto something here, and I'm sure he'll take it
much further if he's given the means to do so. He's effectively fighting the entire
microphone industry single-handedly by suggesting that the basis of microphone development
has been fundamentally flawed for the last seventy years. We all have our prejudices and
our blind spots, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate things from first principles.

Thanks for the post Mutton -- you've
made some interesting comments and observations, although essentially you seem to be
saying it sounds different (possibly in a nice way), but isn't (yet) practically usable.
I'm not surprised by this, and it again begs the question as to who would part with around
£10k for what is clearly still a R&D prototype?

The thing that worries me is
that if the frequency response is all to cock (to use a technical phrase), the subjective
impression is also going to be skewed. Small changes of EQ, as you'll know (along with
every mastering engineer), can make a huge subjective change to things like the 'glassy
veil' effect.

Quote Mutton
Geoff:He's effectively fighting the entire microphone industry
single-handedly by suggesting that the basis of microphone development has been
fundamentally flawed for the last seventy years.

I don't think he's fighting the industry at all. I'm quite
certain that a large number of R&D teams have examined and evaluated his ideas since they
are public domain, and maybe other companies will develop mics that employ his acoustic
impedance matching ideas in some way. Clearly, finding ways to reduce IM distortion is of
importance to the more progressive companies and has been for decades.

The
difference is that most mic manufacturers are producing microphones that can be used
professionally, they sell them at prices people can afford, and some of the profits are
fed back into R&D. It seems Andy hasn't yet reached the point where his mics can be used
professionally, where he can sell them at sensible prices, or in practical numbers.

Quote:We all have our
prejudices and our blind spots, sometimes it's good to re-evaluate things from first
principles.

Hugh's said pretty much what I was going to say. I'd just add that for commercial
purposes time is (the client's) money. Faffing about with EQ-ing a recording that does
not sound great on playback is not what's wanted! Clients often want to playback a take,
or part of it, immediately, while they are "in the zone", to decide whether they need or
want to do another take.

The acknowledged difficulties of using this mic are
going to get in the way of a smooth workflow and, very possibly, upset clients. It's
going to be a brave studio that uses it in those circumstances.

I would also
add that this studio is not unique in still offering wholly analogue recordings, so adding
a digital EQ into the chain is - for those clients - not really an option without
introducing unwanted DA/AD conversion stages.

Basically, this mic should be
sold with an analogue EQ which does the job, if it's to have any hope of success. Or if
it has to be a digital EQ, sell it as a digital mic!

That said, I still look
forward to 0VU having the chance to do some A/B recording in a concert hall. And in case
it's passed Andy by, narcoman has also offered to do the same on an orchestral recording
at Abbey Road.

If either of those guys tell me it's good, I'd take their word
for it.

I don't fundamentally disagree with anything in Hugh or Steve's last posts. There are
obviously some issues regarding the commercial viability of the mic given Andy's price
tag. That seems to be the thing that has generated the largest amount of hot air here.
Like (presumably) most of the rest of the people on this forum I'm not in a position to
spend 30 grand (I'd need at least three Model As)on microphones. However, rather than
getting angry with Andy on that basis I'd encourage anyone who is sufficiently interested
and open-minded to engage directly with him and ask for a demo. He may be something of a
fundamentalist, but he's also passionate about sound and music, so you should have some
common points of contact. My experience is that he's perfectly open to mutually beneficial
collaboration - leave the price question to one side for a while.

There's one
aspect of both Hugh and Steves' posts which is interesting, and that is the immediate
suspicion of any microphone that requires EQ. This illustrates to me how we're trained (as
engineers) to think of everything in terms of spectral balance. One of the things that
interests me most (and one of the reasons why I got in touch with Andy in the first place)
comes from my love of old (I mean very old) recordings. I've often sat listening
transfixed to Grieg or Joachim from acoustic 78s played back on a horn gramophone.
Technically speaking these recordings should be far inferior to anything that we can
produce today. They are mono, have a ridiculous signal to noise ratio, severely limited
bandwidth and (due to the horn) a highly coloured frequency characteristic. What is it
therefore that often makes me feel more in touch with the music on some of these ancient
recordings than listening to (for instance) a Blu-Ray 192kHz surround disk? Most engineers
would say that it's just nostalgia, that I like the sound of hiss and crackle, and the
colouration of a metal horn. The raw output of the Model A sounds remarkably like an
acoustic 78 (without the crackle), and in the same way although it is obviously completely
"wrong" in terms of spectral balance, I got the feeling of things somehow being more
"real". That doesn't maybe make a lot of sense, unless you accept that the ear-brain
combination is more forgiving of severe tonal distortion (the horn response) than it is of
non-harmonic (intermodulation) distortion. The interesting thing is that the "real"
characteristic that I like in the Model As is perceptible regardless of the EQ setting -
it's not something that comes and goes with EQ.

Quote Mutton Geoff:However,
rather than getting angry with Andy on that basis I'd encourage anyone who is sufficiently
interested and open-minded to engage directly with him and ask for a demo.

I don't think anyone is 'getting angry' --
at least I'd hope not. And personally, I have the utmost respect for someone who is trying
to develop what they see as a useful microphone technology. However... nothing I have read
so far provides a sufficiently convincing argument for the theory of operation, and no one
has so far come back with unqualified praise. Moreover, none of the people I've consulted
with far greater expertise in academic acoustical physics and commercial microphone design
than I have been convinced either.

Quote:There's one aspect of both Hugh and Steves' posts which is
interesting, and that is the immediate suspicion of any microphone that requires EQ.

No suspicion here -- pretty much
all microphones involve EQ of some kind, whether acoustical, mechanical, or electronic.
What I find of concern is the fact that the EQ apparently required for this mic design has
not been incorporated into the current models. That makes direct comparisons impossible
and leaves lots of get out clauses... It's simply not a practical or professional
approach.

Quote:What
is it therefore that often makes me feel more in touch with the music on some of these
ancient recordings than listening to (for instance) a Blu-Ray 192kHz surround disk?

Good question, and one that is
often asked. I think performance has a lot to do with it. Back then, only the best were
recorded -- those with real honed talent. Were that it was the same today. I think another
facet is that the recording and reproduction chain was inherently very simple, and
although that brought limitations in terms of bandwidth and s/n ratio, it also makes it
easy for the brain to 'listen through' the media to focus on the performance itself.

Quote:The raw output of
the Model A sounds remarkably like an acoustic 78

...can't think why

Quote:That doesn't maybe make
a lot of sense, unless you accept that the ear-brain combination is more forgiving of
severe tonal distortion (the horn response) than it is of non-harmonic (intermodulation)
distortion.

Quote: Good question, and one
that is often asked. I think performance has a lot to do with it. Back then, only the best
were recorded -- those with real honed talent. Were that it was the same today.

Of course you're right, although I'd
hope that I have enough experience to seperate performance from sound quality to a large
extent. I have a some good friends that are doing some very interesting academic research
into the way that the recording industry has affected performance tradition... There's
enough material for a few doctoral theses in this. Get me started on the ills of modern
production and editing practices in the classical recording industry and we'll really
start annoying people!

Quote: Moreover, none of the people I've consulted with far greater
expertise in academic acoustical physics and commercial microphone design than I have been
convinced either.

I'm not
an acoustic or electronic expert either, but I'd be interested to know where you (and the
experts) think the fundamental flaws lie.

Quote Mutton Geoff: Get me
started on the ills of modern production and editing practices in the classical recording
industry and we'll really start annoying people!

Actually, I think I'd enjoy that conversation -- I suspect we are
of like minds.

Quote:I'd be interested to know where you (and the experts) think the fundamental flaws lie.

The lack of coherent
technical and academic information troubles me, and I do struggle somewhat with the
concept of impedance matching in this context, since that is really only a conern when
transferring power.

A loudspeaker needs to be impedance matched to the air
because you are trying to move acoustic power there, but a microphone isd -- to my mind at
least -- more like a high impedance probe on a low impednace line. It is intended to
sample the air pressure without materially affecting the acoustic wavefront, and therefore
does not require matching -- that's why diaphragm size and bass response are not related
in microphone design, while they certainly are in speaker design.

The capsule
here (whether dynamic or electrostatic -- I don't think we've been told) must be pressure
opereated (else there would need to be two horns). And that being the case, the mechanical
impednaces involved are the sum of the capsule's internal air cavity, the diaphragm
suspension, and the air in the horn. This will necessarily be stiffer than free air, so
adds some additional damping.

All I can assume is that the frontal horn
damping helps to balance in some way the rear internal cavity damping, and thus affects
symmetry of operation and the intermopdulation distortion as a result -- in other words it
works to some extent like the symmetrical RF capsule employed by sennheiser inthe MKH
range. But having said that, I'm struggling to think it is that significant an effect, and
horns typically only exhibit the impedance transformation effect over a narrow frequency
range too -- three octaves at most.

Moreover, I'm struggling to see how any of
this affects the time domain response, which is inherently good in pressure operated mics
anyway. The net phase shift will be zero all the way up to the resonant frequency which
will be over 20kHz in a small diaphragm mic. But where the hornm damping ceases to be
effective, the damping will surely become worse with interesting results...

The
polar response is obviously shaped by the horn, so it's essentially an omni with an
enormous body shadow which will narrow the directivity in the nmid and HF regions.

Just a few thoughts... open to persuasion and correction on any and all.

Don`t think anyone is angry at Andy`s pricing. Incredulous maybe but
never angry.

And my only reservation regarding the mic needing eq is that it
apparently is left up to the user to decide how much of what and where, as opposed to the
more normal way of the eq or equivalent forming part of the construction of the mic.
I can see a certain amount of minor tweaking coming into play as with any other mic, but
the iudea of having to set up a curve to allow for the inherent non-linearity of a mic at
the get-go seems a little excessive & certainly off-putting for the majority of
us.
This may sound simplistic but as Steve says, we don`t have the time or the
latitude from clients to allow faffing around applying eq in an experiemental way every
time we put up a mic.
It is almost as though Andy is so fixated on resolving the
perceived inadequacies of existing technology regarding intermodulation distortion, he is
overlooking the rest of the story, at least in part.

I have just re-read this
thread & downloaded his wav files again, just to refresh my memory.
I am still
keen to see what ow makes of them.

Yes. Andy doesn't give much away. However, as you've noted
above, since much of the underlying theory is public domain I can understand that he might
not want to reveal all his secrets. I understand equally well that this will make people
suspicious that there's no firm technical basis to the mic.

Quote:I do struggle somewhat
with the concept of impedance matching in this context, since that is really only a conern
when transferring power.

This seems a strange statement to me. Surely a microphone (or any transducer) is
involved in converting power from one form of energy to another. The power levels (both
acoustic and electrical) associated with a microphone are tiny compared to those involved
in speaker design, but I don't see why that discounts acoustic efficiency as an issue. I'm
not talking from a position of any informed knowledge here, I just don't follow the logic
of the statement. Obviously acoustic efficency was an issue in the days before electrical
recording... without the recording horn we would indeed have heard nothing but swish and
crackle pre 1925!

I don't have a scientific understanding of horn theory, and
my knowledge of acoustic design as it relates to speakers and microphones is basic and
rusty. In electrical terms I can follow the concept of the horn as a resonant transformer.
From this it follows that its efficiency varies with frequency. In the case of the Model A
the horn is designed to be at it's most efficient round 2Khz, to coincide with the area in
which the human ear is at its most mechanically accurate. I think your reaction, and that
of most microphone designers is along the lines of "why would you want to do this?", ie.
why would you want to create so many problems simply in order to massively boost acoustic
efficiency for a range of frequencies? The focus of the industry (especially those
companies that specialise in small capsule "measurement mic" designs) has been to attempt
to avoid capsule resonance within the range of audibility (or at least to shift it up as
high as possible)... and here's someone who's recommending the use of massive horn
resonance smack in the middle of our speech range. Here's a prejudice of mine.. I'm
allergic to the sound of a certain widely used small capsule measurement mic, despite the
reputation it has within audiophile recording circles. My microphones of choice at work
are fifty year old Neumann M49s. I suspect I'm not alone in the industry with my
preference here. However, if you look at the frequency response plots this reaction simply
doesn't make sense. The M49 is coloured and band-limited in comparison to most modern
pencil condensers. I asked Andy Simpson about this, and his response was very interesting.
He suggests (as with the Model A) that it's largely to with IM distortion again. The
theory is that the classic mics from the fifties (U47, M49, Telefunken 251, and to a
certain extent the smaller capsule M50) have resonance issues much lower in the audio
spectrum than modern mics. In a less extreme way than with the Model A, the resonance
boosts output for a certain range of frequencies, resulting in correspondlingly less IM
distortion associated with that frequency range. Isn't that an interesting concept? At any
rate it's the closest anyone has come to explaining scientifically why I like the sound of
old mics when I know they are technically inferior. If I thought the Model A sounded
better than an M49, I might buy a cardboard box for the kids, sell the house, and buy a
clutch of Model As... I don't think Andy's there yet, but as I've said before, I think he
might be on the right track.

Quote Mutton Geoff:....I asked
Andy Simpson about this, and his response was very interesting. He suggests (as with the
Model A) that it's largely to with IM distortion again. The theory is that the classic
mics from the fifties (U47, M49, Telefunken 251, and to a certain extent the smaller
capsule M50) have resonance issues much lower in the audio spectrum than modern mics. In a
less extreme way than with the Model A, the resonance boosts output for a certain range of
frequencies, resulting in correspondlingly less IM distortion associated with that
frequency range. Isn't that an interesting concept? At any rate it's the closest anyone
has come to explaining scientifically why I like the sound of old mics when I know they
are technically inferior. If I thought the Model A sounded better than an M49, I might buy
a cardboard box for the kids, sell the house, and buy a clutch of Model As...

Hello Geoff,

To correct
slightly (to my recollection at least) what I said was that I consider that the the polar
response & audible-band resonance of the m49 interact to produce 'good' spectral
masking ratios for the perception of 'depth'.

I don't suggest that the
mechanical 'ringing' resonant tuning of the diaphragm reduces intermodulation distortion,
rather the bandlimiting/roll-off does.

While generally condenser capsule
nonlinearity increases with frequency, if there is a mechanical roll-off then the
nonlinear distortion in that range is proportionally reduced, which reduces the
significance of IMD components in all other areas (ie. 'difference frequency'
components).

In other words, a 15k roll-off reduces nonlinearity in the least
linear area and so the sub-15k area suffers less IMD interference from the >15k
range.

I would also guess that back-plate distances for these old mics were
greater than is common these days and that as a result fundamental linearity is likely
also better on these old mics than the newer 'higher sensitivity' mics.

Close
back-plate and wide bandwidth are a linearity/IMD disaster combination avoided in the old
mics.

Andy

PS - Next time I'm in Oslo we can do an A/B against the
m49s - if the Model A doesn't beat them I'll give you a set free of charge.

Sorry if I've misrepresented things here Andy. You're quite right that you sent me a clear
and detailed explanation of the relationship between spectral masking and depth
perception. I should read my notes before attempting to write technical essays! Maybe a
shootout between M49s (plus Brauner VM-1s?) and Model As would achieve a lot more than
words here. I'm hoping to organise something in a larger acoustic than the radio studio
under more flexible circumstances, and in an ideal world with full symphonic forces. When
that happens I'm sure this forum will hear about it.

Quote Mutton Geoff:This seems a
strange statement to me. Surely a microphone (or any transducer) is involved in converting
power from one form of energy to another. The power levels (both acoustic and electrical)
associated with a microphone are tiny compared to those involved in speaker design, but I
don't see why that discounts acoustic efficiency as an issue.

There are direct parallels here in the
electrical interfaces of loudspeakers and microphones. In the case of loudspeakers, we are
interested in the transfer of power, so amplifier outputs are impedance matched with the
loudspeakers they are connected to.

If the transfer of power was important in
microphones, microphone inputs would have a 200 ohm input impedance (to match the nominal
200 ohm output impednace of (most) microphones). But we're not interested in transfering
power, and they aren't.

Instead, we are interested in monitoring the changing
signal voltage ~without affecting it. That requires a high impedance input and hence mic
preamps have mostly a 1.5-5k input impedance.

It seems to me that a microphone
has the same relationship to a passing acoustical wavefront as a mic preamp does to a
microphone output -- it is there to monitor what is going on without changing it, and in
that context, a high impedance is required, not a matched impedance.

That's not
to say that Andy hasn't found some benefit in attempting to match the impedance through
the mid frquency range with a horn. It may well be that this does have an effect on
reducing intermodulation distortion.

The question is whether the downsides of
this approach are acceptable, and if reducing IM is as important as he is suggesting
(which I can accept) whether there aren't other ways of doing the same thing with less
detrimental side effects.

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I
know that some mic manufacturer R&D departments are working on these issues. ... but then
we enter the thorny world of finances, and while everyonw and there dog is making cheap
clone mics using severnty year old technology, and continually driving prices down as a
result, R&D funding is at an all time low and development is very slow.

Your
point about resonance is a good one. I share your awareness of the HF resonance of
capacitor mics. It is a well known problem and different manufacturers have found various
different ways of dealing with it. One significant advantage of ribbon mics, as far as I'm
concerned, is the fact that their inherent resonances are subsonic (~15Hz) as opposed to
(low) ultrasonic. They also have a gentle and early HF roll-off which, as Andy points out,
helps to reduce any IM problems in a very gentle and natural way.

Wow, I've been away from the forum for a while, I didn't realise what I was getting into
with my initial (admittedly plagiarised) question. It seems the discussion has continued
but there's only been a little more light shed (for whatever reasons) on the sound and
function of the microphones. I do look forward to the planned tests by 3 (is it now?)
different engineers.

Someone mentioned 'audiophile' use at one point. I'd like
to point out that for some people (including me at times) this is now unfortunately a term
of derision - due to magic rocks, green marker pens and several feet of power cable
costing into the thousands. I was reading the list of distributors for one range of
products and couldn't help imagining a bunch of shady chancers but this is probably unkind
in most cases. I believe that Mr Simpson is genuine in his passion for these
microphones (although I am more than willing to admit my potential credulity here) but do
think that he has done himself no favours with the pricing. I understand his valuing of
his ideas but it's not always true that any publicity is good publicity. Take the Genwave
eq., I had to look up the name as I'd forgotten it but I haven't heard this mentioned for
some time despite the controversy generated, mainly by its' price.

Well according to Hugh's posts above they won't be considered because they're too
expensive for the average SOS reader. That's fine, I just think it's uncool to speculate
negatively without even trying them out.

Quote David:Well according to
Hugh's posts above they won't be considered because they're too expensive for the average
SOS reader. That's fine, I just think it's uncool to speculate negatively without even
trying them out.

They've
reviewed SSL control surfaces valued at tens of thousands...and they don't really fall
within the reach of (probably) most of the readership either.

If these things
are as good as proposed, send them and let them be reviewed. if there's anything either of
sonic or scientific interest I'm sure it'd get published, but the review would have to
fight for paper real estate the same as everything else.

If I recall correctly, it was more that hugh decided the science behind them either wasn`t
valid or was unprovable one way or the other

I have given up on the ow
recordings and assume that either it happened and nobody wants to publish the results, or
it just didn`t happen.Shame, because I feel we have given Andy all th erope he could
ever need & thus far the whole thing has been neatly sidestepped by all concerned.Aren`t we all going to be kicking ourselves when it is decided these mics are the bees
knees and the price doubles!

Quote David:That's fine, I just
think it's uncool to speculate negatively without even trying them out.

Last time I read this thread (which seems an
awfully long time ago) there seemed to be a large degree of 'speculation' from the
manufacturer on the abilities of the product, poor audio samples on their website and a
reluctance to provide serious scientific information to back up their claims against
fairly reasoned discussion.

Anyway, the subsequent silence (I'm assuming 0VU
was never given mics to try) says it all!

Quote David:That's fine, I
just think it's uncool to speculate negatively without even trying them out.

Last time I read this thread (which
seems an awfully long time ago) there seemed to be a large degree of 'speculation' from
the manufacturer on the abilities of the product, poor audio samples on their website and
a reluctance to provide serious scientific information to back up their claims against
fairly reasoned discussion.

Anyway, the subsequent silence (I'm assuming 0VU
was never given mics to try) says it all!

Bob

Whole heartedly agree. Or rather heavy
heartedly.

Such massive claims and so many opportunities to validate them with
some of the best in the business, but still.... Nothing.

+1, Steve. I think my first impression of him and his mics all that long weary time ago
has been proved to be right, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.So.Groundbreaking new technology seems to have become Emperors New Suit.Time to move
on.

All I have ever seen is the cyberdrawing, not a real one, even in a photo.
And
frankly I think it is time to draw a line under this one for good and all.
Those of
you with long memories may recall my earlier mammoth thread on these mics and all the
handbag and dummy throwing that caused.
Can I be the first to say LET IT GO?
We could always discuss why it is nobody seems to be able to groove any more......

Unfortunately, I have not yet heard anything, by phone or email or
PM, from either OVU or Narcoman - however, I'm sure they're both busy and awaiting a
suitable opportunity (or perhaps there has been a technical communication problem?).

I have long since sent private messages to both parties and indicated that I will
be happy to visit the UK for such a test.

In any case, if either are reading,
please do get in touch (email/phone on my website) and perhaps we can get around to making
the arrangements.

Unfortunately, I have not yet heard anything, by phone or email or PM, from either
OVU or Narcoman - however, I'm sure they're both busy and awaiting a suitable opportunity
(or perhaps there has been a technical communication problem?).

I have long
since sent private messages to both parties and indicated that I will be happy to visit
the UK for such a test.

In any case, if either are reading, please do get in
touch (email/phone on my website) and perhaps we can get around to making the
arrangements.

Andy

If this is truly the case then I apologize Andy.

It does seem we're all
jumping to conclusions about communications that may or may not have taken place between
three people many/most of us don't even know.